Australian Family Law

Identify and investigate these contemporary issues relating to family law and evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non-legal responses to these issues

The case of Jonah v White (2012) 48 FAM LR 562 wishes to appeal the original decision of Murphy J, in which his Honour asserted that the appellant, (“Ms Jonah”) and the respondent (“Mr White”) had not been in a de-facto relationship in correspondence with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The appeal is bought before May, Strickland and Ainslie-Wallace JJ in the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Brisbane. The case seeks to question and determine what constitutes a law-binding de-facto relationship.

The effect of the surrogacy agreement is fascinating. Brown J insisted that ‘it is the Family Law Act that governs this case, not the provisions of the surrogate agreement’. But the significant factor of the birth mother’s lack of objection to the application was consistent with her obligations under the agreement. The result of the litigation was consistent with the outcome which the parties attempted to secure by their agreement. The effect on the state’s criminal prohibition of commercial surrogacy was regarded as irrelevant, even though Brown J noted that a dominant explanation for the intending parents’ decision to enter into a surrogacy agreement in California was that ‘such an agreement would be illegal in Victoria’. Without explanation, her Honour held that the illegality of the agreement was not a relevant consideration. There is now a significant number of recent cases which are similar to Re Mark, although from these cases it appears that Thailand has become a popular destination for Australian intended

The case being discussed is Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service v Q [2016] QSC 89. The applicant for this case is the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service. The first respondent is Q, a 12-year-old girl who is nine weeks pregnant. Q was referred to the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service after visiting a general practitioner to terminate her pregnancy. The Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service, the applicant for this case, then applied to the court in the parens patriae jurisdiction for authorisation to terminate Q’s pregnancy. The parens patriae jurisidiction refers to the power of the court to impose a decision about a child on the basis it is for the child’s best interest. The second respondent is Q’s Father and the third respondent is Q’s Mother. The amicus curiae Ms

Australian law reforms have been adequately effective in dealing with surrogacy and birthing technologies. The NSW state reforms have effectively supported the changing values of society by aiming to achieve justice and avoid conflicts surrounding surrogacy, while the commonwealth is obsolete on effective laws to prevent surrogacy issues. As the demand for surrogacy and birthing technologies increases, issues surrounding surrogacy are more prevalent in society. Additionally, there is no Commonwealth law, meaning each state and territory has developed individual laws of surrogacy and birthing technologies, allowing for issues and challenges surrounding the protection and the rights of all parties involved.

Gammy was born to a Thai surrogate who was paid by Australian intended parents. Gammy was born with down syndrome and a hole in his heart requiring extensive medical treatment. The intended parents chose to take Gammy’s healthy twin sister back to Australia, leaving Gammy with his surrogate. This case caused international concern, raising awareness of the lack of regulation of international surrogacy arrangements and highlighting the ethical considerations involved in the practice of

This assignment will begin by defining child protection. This will lead to an analytical comparison between England and Florida’s child protection approaches, structure of the system and possible practice issues. This will include will include relevant legislation and policies. Following this suggestions on the improvement of provisions and services will be made in accordance to the above findings. Child protection has been chosen for the focus of this assignment as this is a service that has been highlighted as an area that needs improvement within England. The

Family law is the most complex aspect of the Australian legal system as it is constantly under review and reform pursuing to adopt society’s continual change in values and principles. The changing of laws in an attempt to be parallel with society is a strenuous process. Nevertheless, legislations are reflective of contemporary society’s values and ethics. Numerous legal issues arise in regards to family including, same sex relationships, domestic violence and divorce ideally on the best interest of the child, where family laws have been imposed to protect individuals and aim to achieve justice.

Law reform is considered proactive with relation to surrogacy and birth technologies, as methods of conception must be permitted before they are conducted. Surrogacy, which occurs when one woman agrees to fall pregnant and bear a child for a couple, is illegal in NSW when the woman is paid a fee or award, under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 (NSW). Hence, surrogacy must be altruistic. Furthermore, the Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW) now criminalises an international journey for commercial surrogacy.

Under s.60 of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, an individual “(a) is liable, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to both; or (b) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $250,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years, or to both” for not complying with the guidelines set out regarding the duties of the reproduction of a child. A surrogate mother is defined as a woman who carries a fetus conceived through an assisted reproduction procedure which is derived from the genes of a donor or donors, and with the intent of surrendering such child at the time of birth (AHRA, 2004). However, there is still ambiguity felt between surrogates and parents related to what the law sets out as their legal duties in conceiving a child, and this is also pertinent in relation to the context of a working contract. Having said that, this essay aims at addressing the unclarity, pointing to the main arguments in favor of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, and how the decision was aimed to safeguard the rights of those involved; including the child, and to prevent culpability issues within the health sector and many others linked to the overall process.

In this world we get three unique gifts that are impossible to replace, and devastating to lose. The first gift we ever receive is the gift of life itself, the second, a diamond ring forged with a promise, and finally, perhaps our greatest gift, is the life we get to create. For many, a child is the single most precious treasure they can have, and when it comes to fighting for the right to raise a child, it’s easy to get swept up in the emotional turmoil. This is why the decision on child custody in a divorce is a complex one that is more often than not left to the court to decide on. A judge takes several factors into consideration when determining which parent should be allowed to have primary custody of a child.

With fault based divorce in the 1960s, child custody depended primarily on the child’s age. If the child was under seven years old, also known as the ‘tender years,’ the mother would receive physical custody. This was because of the belief at the time that women are good caregivers and it was their job to take care of the children at home. However, if the children were older, custody would be granted to the parent of the same sex. Sometimes judges would also award custody of children dependent on martial or sexual conduct of the spouses. When custody was awarded in this way, the presiding judge could be more focused on the rights of the parents than what is best for the child in that situation. Either way, it was quite noticeable that child custody was based on the judge and their opinion, which could change from case to case.

Good afternoon, Mr Prime Minster, and federal and state members of parliament. I’m Alex Barry-Ramoi, we are all here today to review and debate our current laws affecting the Australian family. As you’ve stated Mr Prime Minster, we are in a time of great social change and family life has become vastly different to that of our grandparents. The values of the new generation are changing and our laws need to be updated to be properly adequate for these changes. One of those laws that I personally feel requires immediate change is our current laws surrounding surrogacy as it has always been and always will be a common desire to have a family. The current laws and penalties are Inconsistent throughout all states, they discriminate especially against same-sex couples, they don’t make clear on what is legally acceptable and our current law system just moves our surrogacy issues overseas.

The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, implemented in 1970 and later updated in 2000, emphasized the “best interest of the child”, providing guidelines such as considering the interaction between parents and the child’s adjustment to their surroundings, in which judges can base their decisions (Krauss & Sales, 2001). The interpretation of the “best interest of the child” standard, varies from judge to judge. In this aspect, judges hold a strong power in determining the fate of the child, very much often relying on their own personal beliefs and interpretations. The conflict of values can clearly be examined in the case of Painter v. Bannister. Custody of 7-year-old Mark Bannister was awarded to his grandparents, whom as the judge cited, held “stable and conventional” values that would be beneficial for the young boy’s development (Painter v. Bannister, 1996). Mr. Bannister, with no previous allegations of reckless behavior or abuse lost custody due to his “bohemian” lifestyle and liberal values. Although judges allow personal values and biases influence their decisions, there are other factors crucial in making an ultimate decision.

Child marriage violates a range of rights protected under the CRC and this essay will discuss violations of the right to non-discrimination (Article 2), right to education (Article 28), right to health (Article 24) and right to life (Article 6). In this analysis, it will be shown how the violation of one right in this context leads to the successive violation of other rights. The order in which this analysis will follow is argued to be the order in which the successive violations of these rights will often occur, highlighting the links between them.